Uneasy Lies the Head

I once wrote an article about the supposed “red line” issued by President Obama over the usage of chemical weapons in Syria and the president’s lack of action.  I worried then and still do now that the lack of action sent the wrong message.  Whether action should be taken or not is no longer the question for the president has already committed us to action.  The question is, when, where and how should that action now proceed?  Once more, the Syrian government has unleashed an even heavier and deadlier attack of Sarin gas.  President Bashar al-Assad jabbed the sleeping giant and it growled and snarled but ultimately, went back to sleep.  Now, he has done it again and if we do not respond, it could have catastrophic effects.   

As the Syrian conflict first erupted a couple of years ago, the president suggested, as we tangled ourselves in Libya, that we had no interest in the conflict and would not join or assist in the fight.  Some observers wondered why Libya and not Syria but the Americans were in agreement – we had our fill of getting involved in the internal conflicts of Middle Eastern countries.  Then, there was intelligence that suggested Mr. Assad could use chemical weapons against those who opposed his government.  The U.S., along with Israel, declared chemical weapons to be a Rubicon that could not be crossed without a response.  Syria did and the U.S. decided that their “red line” was not as definite has had been suggested.  Recently, Mr. Obama suggested the “red line” was still in place and he would not tolerate the usage of chemical weapons.  Syria did and the president has taken an interesting stance. 

Earlier this past week, it seemed as if the U.S. was on the precipice of committing military action in Syria against the Assad regime and its chemical capabilities.  The president mentioned imminent action in an interview; the Secretary of State John Kerry delivered an impassioned case for the need to do something now.  The White House press secretary also suggested that the president had the power to do something now.  However, in the last twenty-four hours, the president and his administration have taken a different tone.  Now, the president declares that he will wait until the Congress is back in session (about a week from now) and communicate and work with them to get congressional input.     

There are a couple of things that I should add as a caveat.  One, the president is in possession of intelligence that no one else knows which might explain his actions or lack thereof.  Yet, as I said before, it begs the question of why the president has come out so strongly against Syria if evidence or intelligence would suggest a murkier picture.  Second, the Congress has been harping, rightfully so, that it needs to recapture some of its authority as it relates to the president’s power.  However, this is not the time to appeal to Congress and help them regain their authority if the situation requires more immediate action.  Lastly, the president is on the verge of emboldening forces that are carefully watching his actions – Mr. Assad, Hezbollah (the Shi’a extremists who operate in Syria and Lebanon) and Iran.  They are all watching things carefully and determining what to do next. 

Again, no one outside the White House has the complete picture yet, what can been seen is the impact of the decisions being made by the administration.  The president needs to know that off-the-cuff remarks and the need to say something at every turn has created some unnecessary quagmires.  At this point, the U.S. needs to follow an acta non verba policy and in the future, the administration needs to be more discipline regarding what they say about foreign issues.  It is not helping the administration and it certainly is not helping the United States.

When a Red Line Isn’t

Il nous faut de l’audace, et encore de l’audace, et toujours de l’audace (We must have audacity, and again audacity, and every day audacity).
            Georges Danton, French revolutionary

Earlier this year, President Obama spoke with uncharacteristic frankness and unequivocally laid out the nature of possible American involvement in Syria.  Meanwhile, the world watched.  Would the Syrians be so daring as to unleash chemical weapons with such an explicit threat laid down by the president of the United States?  Meanwhile, Israel laid out its own red line, along the same criterion as the president.  Should the Syrian government use chemical weapons on its own people, it would respond.  Both the U.S. and Israel declared a “red line” drawn and should it be crossed, it promised military action.  The response has been telling. 

By April of this year, stories leaked that the besieged Syrian government had possibly done just that.  Once there was sufficient evidence of the chemical attack, President Obama equivocated by suggesting that his “red line” was not analogous to military action.  Israel, upon its “red line” being crossed, sent jets into Syria and bombed some of its research facilities for chemical weapons.  As Geddy Lee of the band Rush once said, “If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.”  Both say something revealing.  From an international perspective, which lies beyond the partisan posturing within which American politicians often wallow, the message is that Israel is decisive and to be taken seriously and the U.S. is not. 

Throughout U.S. history, there have been warnings that stem from dithering presidents – Franklin Roosevelt in Spain, John F. Kennedy in Cuba, Jimmy Carter in Iran, to name a few.  Therefore, President Obama finds himself at a crossroads that demand action.  The rhetorical gymnastics the Obama administration has done in explaining its inaction to the American press and public is not perceived the same way to international brutes and savages.  Bashar al-Assad and his government, while beleaguered on many levels by rebels, fundamentalists and now Israel, is not concerned with the United States. 

What does this mean for the United States?  If we proclaim to hold some sort of international mandate and authority to act in defense of the defenseless around the world, we must first put ourselves in a position to be taken seriously.  The more we fail to act on our principles, the more decayed we become.  The more we concern ourselves with the perception of our country and our goals, the more we will miss opportunities to do something right. 

Some might perceive an action by the Americans as threatening a widening of the conflict but I believe that to be entirely in the hands of the Assad regime.  Take the Israeli action for example.  What can Syria do?  They have suggested, as reported by al-Jazeera, that the Israeli military is in cahoots with Islamic fundamentalists but I can’t imagine there will be much traction from such an accusation.  They cannot fire upon the Israeli military or into Israel for fear of widening the conflict.  They cannot handle the rebels in their own country, much less the most sophisticated military force in the Middle East.   

It is quite possible that there is intelligence that is preventing the president from acting as he said he would months ago.  Unfortunately, either the Obama administration erred when they set the red line or they erred in deciding not to uphold such an ultimatum.  Either way, the administration is in a dangerous spot.  The war-weary people of Syria needed help a long time ago but inaction then does not justify inaction now.  We must do the good work to help the ordinary Syrians before the Assad military regime completely obliterates them.  One might think we are hated now – how is the situation served better by refusing to help those in need?